On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes:
>> OK; I expect these issues with the implementation are all
>> surmountable.  I did not necessarily expect this to be the final
>> implementation anyhow, as indicated by my comments below the divider
>> line.  However it's not clear to me what you think about the idea in
>> principle, and whether other compiler flags would merit inclusion.
> As different versions of GCC behave differently, and the same GCC
> (mis)detect issues differently depending on the optimization level,
> I do not know if it will be a fruitful exercise to try to come up
> with one expression to come up with the set of flags to suit
> everybody.

Fair enough, but let's not allow perfect to become the enemy of good.
Other flags aside, surely enabling -Wdeclaration-after-statement when
it is available is an improvement on the status quo, if it is done in
a way which doesn't damage the current build process?  History shows
quite a few instances of other developers falling into the same trap I
did, e.g.


So if the check was automated in the majority of cases (I guess the
majority of developers use gcc), it would mean less review work for
you and fewer re-rolls.  If you agree, I will try to rework the patch
so that it doesn't damage the build.

> One flag I prefer to use is -Werror, but that means the
> other flags must have zero false positive rate.

Personally I'm a fan of -Werror too.  How frequent are false
positives, and are any of them ever insurmountable?

> If you are interested, the flags I personally use with the version
> of GCC I happen to have is in the Make script on the 'todo' branch.

Thanks for the info.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to